Case Summary
| Case ID | 22F-H2221009-REL-RHG |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2022-04-25 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Velva Moses-Thompson |
| Outcome | full |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Sam & Pipper O' Shaughnessy Stangl | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Sabino Vista Townhouse Association | Counsel | Nathan Tennyson |
Alleged Violations
Article VI of the CC&Rs
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge deemed Petitioners the prevailing party. Respondent HOA violated Article VI of the CC&Rs by failing to maintain and remove rubbish from the natural desert area within the Common Area up to the exterior building lines, as the Board's determination not to maintain the area lacked proper authority without a CC&R amendment. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the CC&Rs and refund the Petitioners' filing fee.
Key Issues & Findings
HOA maintenance obligations for common area up to exterior building lines
Petitioners alleged the HOA failed to maintain and otherwise manage all property up to the exterior building lines and patio enclosures, specifically a natural desert area within the Common Area. The ALJ found that the CC&Rs require the Association to maintain and remove all rubbish within its property up to the exterior building lines, and the Board lacked the authority to refuse maintenance of the natural desert area without amending the CC&Rs.
Orders: Respondent is ordered to comply with the requirements of Article VI of the CC&Rs going forward and must pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
- Article VI of the CC&Rs
- Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
- Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
Analytics Highlights
- A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
- A.R.S. § 33-1803
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
- Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
- Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
- A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2221009-REL Decision – 927714.pdf
22F-H2221009-REL Decision – 927747.pdf
Stangl v. Sabino Vista Townhouse Association: A Dispute Over Common Area Maintenance
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the key facts, arguments, and legal decisions in the administrative case of Sam & Pipper O’ Shaughnessy Stangl versus the Sabino Vista Townhouse Association. The central conflict revolves around the Association’s legal obligation, as defined by its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), to maintain a common area behind the Petitioners’ property.
The Petitioners alleged that the Association violated Article 6 of its CC&Rs by failing to maintain this area for over two decades, resulting in the accumulation of rubbish and the creation of a habitat for pests. The Association countered that the area in question was designated “natural desert” to serve as a buffer, and that maintaining it was not required and would be cost-prohibitive.
An initial hearing in November 2021 resulted in a decision in favor of the Petitioners. The Association was granted a rehearing, which took place in April 2022. Despite new arguments from the Association regarding budget constraints, historical precedent, and alleged interference by the Petitioners, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) upheld the original decision.
The final ruling on April 25, 2022, found that the language of CC&R Article 6 is unambiguous and requires the Association to maintain “all property up to the exterior building lines.” The ALJ concluded that the Board of Directors does not have the authority to unilaterally designate a common area as “unmaintained” without formally amending the CC&Rs. Consequently, the Association was ordered to comply with Article 6 and reimburse the Petitioners’ filing fee.
Case Overview
Case Name
Sam & Pipper O’ Shaughnessy Stangl, Petitioners, vs. Sabino Vista Townhouse Association, Respondent.
Case Numbers
22F-H2221009-REL (Initial Hearing)
22F-H2221009-REL-RHG (Rehearing)
Adjudicating Body
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Velva Moses-Thompson
Key Dates
Petition Filed: August 6, 2021
Initial Hearing: November 8, 2021
Initial Decision: November 29, 2021
Rehearing: April 4, 2022
Final Decision: April 25, 2022
The Central Allegation: Violation of CC&R Article 6
The dispute is founded on the interpretation of Article 6 of the Sabino Vista Townhouse Association’s CC&Rs concerning “Common Maintenance.”
Key Provisions of Article 6:
• Maintenance Obligation: “The Association, or its duly authorized representative, shall maintain and otherwise manage all property up to the exterior building lines and patio enclosures including but not limited to the landscaping… roofs, common elements, decorative walls, drainage… and be responsible for the rubbish removal of all areas within the common properties.”
• Standard of Care: “The Board of Directors of the Association shall use a reasonably high standard of care in providing for the repair, management and maintenance of said property, so that said townhouse project will reflect high pride of ownership.”
Petitioners’ Core Claim: Filed on August 6, 2021, the petition alleged that the Association violated Article 6 by failing to maintain the property behind their townhome unit. They asserted this neglect had persisted for the approximately 24 years they had lived there, leading to overgrowth and pest infestations.
The First Hearing and Decision (November 2021)
Summary of Arguments
• Petitioners (Sam & Pipper O’ Shaughnessy Stangl):
◦ Alleged observing only 12 hours of landscaping work in their immediate back area over 24 years.
◦ Claimed the accumulated rubbish and overgrowth served as a habitat for pests, specifically mentioning “a pack rat for rattlesnakes.”
◦ Submitted a photograph of a rattlesnake skin found in their backyard as evidence.
• Respondent (Sabino Vista Townhouse Association):
◦ Testimony was provided by Charles Taylor Ostermeyer, secretary of the Board of Directors.
◦ Argued the area in question is a “natural desert area and underbrush” that begins 30 to 40 feet behind the homes.
◦ Initially claimed the Board had adopted a rule limiting maintenance to just 4 feet behind residences, citing Board meeting minutes. However, when pressed by the ALJ, Ostermeyer conceded that believing a formal rule was adopted “would be conjecture on my part.”
◦ Asserted it would be too costly to clear the entire region.
◦ Contended that the decision not to maintain the open desert area was a valid exercise of the “business judgment rule” applicable to non-profit organizations.
November 29, 2021 Decision
The ALJ, Velva Moses-Thompson, ruled in favor of the Petitioners.
• Finding: The preponderance of the evidence showed the Respondent failed to maintain the property as required by the unambiguous language of Article 6.
• Reasoning: The Respondent provided “no evidence of an Amendment to Article VI” and “no evidence of a rule properly adopted by the Board that would limit the common area to be maintained.”
• Order: The Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party, and the Association was ordered to reimburse their $500 filing fee and comply with Article 6 going forward.
The Rehearing and Final Decision (April 2022)
The Association’s request for a rehearing was granted, with the new hearing held on April 4, 2022. The Association was represented by Nathan Tennyson, Esq., and presented testimony from John Polasi, a Board member and Chairman of the Landscape Committee.
Rehearing Testimony and Arguments
Petitioner Arguments (Sam O’ Shaughnessy Stangl)
Respondent Arguments (John Polasi, HOA Board)
Core Issue is Deflection: Argued the Association’s narrative was a “deflection from the main issue.” Stated the HOA focused on irrelevant topics to circumvent the court’s correct original ruling.
Area is a “Natural Buffer”: The unmaintained area has existed since 1974 and serves as a natural buffer from Tanque Verde Creek, keeping wildlife out and preventing hikers/bikers from wandering into the neighborhood.
Tree Trimming Incident: Claimed the HOA falsely accused him of “singlehandedly” stopping all tree trimming. Clarified a December 2021 interaction with a contractor (Leon’s Tree Service) lasted only 30 seconds, where he refused permission to cut three shade branches in his private front courtyard.
Petitioner Hindrance: Alleged the Petitioners actively hindered tree trimming in December 2021 by refusing the contractor entry into their courtyard and blocking their driveway with an SUV to prevent the trimming of a low-hanging branch.
Pest Infestations: Maintained that pests are a significant problem, citing a recent rattlesnake sighting on his birthday (March 21) and his personal removal of “252 packrats in the last three years.”
Pest Control is Managed: Stated the HOA contracts “Mr. Packrat” to inspect the entire property quarterly. Polasi testified he had been chairman for a year and had “never heard of a single pack rider or rattlesnake anywhere.”
Misuse of Common Area: Dismissed accusations of misusing the common area as “pure deflection.” He stated his use (grilling, sitting outdoors) was adjudicated in court 18 years prior and found to be in compliance with CC&Rs.
Petitioner Misuse of Common Area: Accused the Petitioners of violating CC&Rs by placing personal items (barbecue, smoker, tables, chairs) in the common area and cutting a hole in their patio wall for water and electric lines.
Developer’s Intent: Cited a statement from Dale Chastine, the original developer, asserting the CC&Rs were written to “strictly forbid any unfettered wild growth” and require all common areas to be maintained in the same manner.
Board Authority and Historical Precedent: Cited 2020 Board Minutes that formally designated the area “35 ft to the south of southern homeowner rear wall” as “unmaintained natural desert landscape.” Referenced 1999 minutes indicating a 4-foot maintenance rule was previously in place.
New Issues: Attempted to introduce new evidence regarding a “complete drainage channel that… is now buried under debris and soil,” but the ALJ did not admit it as it was a new allegation not in the original petition.
Budgetary Constraints: Argued that maintaining the entire two-to-four-acre area would be excessively expensive. He noted the HOA had recently spent $15,000 on front-area tree trimming and $10,000 on tree repairs, and had other costs like a new pool pump.
April 25, 2022 Final Decision
The ALJ again ruled in favor of the Petitioners, affirming the initial decision.
• Core Conclusion: “Although the Board determined that it would not maintain the natural desert, the Board does not have authority under its CC&Rs to refuse to maintain any of the area of its property up to the exterior building lines.”
• Legal Reasoning: The CC&Rs are unambiguous and require the Association to maintain and remove rubbish from all property within its boundaries, including the area designated as “natural desert.”
• Path Forward for HOA: The ALJ explicitly stated, “If the Association does not want to maintain any area within its property up to the exterior building lines, the Association should amend its CC&Rs.”
• Final Order: The order from the November 29, 2021 decision was reiterated: Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party, the Respondent was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee, and the Respondent was directed to comply with Article VI of the CC&Rs.
Stangl v. Sabino Vista Townhouse Association: A Case Study Guide
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case between homeowners Sam & Pipper O’ Shaughnessy Stangl and the Sabino Vista Townhouse Association. It includes a short-answer quiz with a corresponding answer key, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the case documents.
——————————————————————————–
Short Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences, using only information provided in the source documents.
1. What was the central violation alleged by the Petitioners in their August 6, 2021, petition?
2. According to Article 6 of the CC&Rs, what is the Sabino Vista Townhouse Association’s responsibility regarding property maintenance?
3. In the first hearing on November 8, 2021, what was the Respondent’s primary argument for not maintaining the area behind the Petitioners’ home?
4. What was the outcome of the first Administrative Law Judge Decision issued on November 29, 2021?
5. Who testified for the Respondent at the April 4, 2022, rehearing, and what were his roles within the Association?
6. What two historical documents did the Respondent present at the rehearing to support its maintenance policy for the area in question?
7. Describe the Respondent’s accusation against the Petitioners regarding the tree trimming service in December 2021.
8. What strategic reasons did the Respondent’s witness, John Polasi, give for leaving the desert area unmaintained?
9. In the final decision of April 25, 2022, why did the Administrative Law Judge rule against the Association despite its evidence of a board-approved maintenance plan?
10. What specific orders were issued to the Respondent in the final court decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioners alleged that the Sabino Vista Townhouse Association violated Article 6 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, they claimed the Association failed to maintain and otherwise manage all property up to the exterior lines and patio enclosures, focusing on the unkempt two-acre area behind their townhome.
2. Article 6 requires the Association to “maintain and otherwise manage all property up to the exterior building lines and patio enclosures.” This includes landscaping, common elements, and rubbish removal, and mandates that the Board of Directors use a “reasonably high standard of care” so the project reflects a high pride of ownership.
3. In the first hearing, the Respondent argued that it had applied the “business judgment rule” applicable to non-profit organizations. The Association contended it would be too costly to clear out the entire region, which it described as an open desert area with many trees and weeds.
4. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the Petitioners to be the prevailing party. The ALJ ordered the Respondent to comply with Article 6 of the CC&Rs going forward and to pay the Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00.
5. John Polasi testified for the Respondent at the rehearing. He was identified as a member of the Respondent’s Board of Directors and the Chairman of the Landscaping Committee.
6. The Respondent presented minutes from a Board Meeting in February 1999, which stated that only 4 feet behind residences were maintained, with the remainder left natural. They also presented minutes from a 2020 Board Meeting that revised this policy, designating an area 35 feet from the southern homeowner walls as the maintenance boundary.
7. The Respondent alleged that the Petitioners interfered with and prevented a tree trimming project conducted by Leon’s Tree Service. The witness claimed the Petitioners refused entry into their front patio to trim overhanging limbs and moved a vehicle into their driveway to block the work.
8. John Polasi testified that the unmaintained desert area serves as a “natural buffer.” He stated it keeps animals from the adjacent Tanque Verde Creek area from coming onto homeowner property and also prevents bikers and hikers from wandering into the neighborhood.
9. The ALJ ruled that although the Board had determined it would not maintain the natural desert area, the Board does not have the authority under its CC&Rs to refuse maintenance. The judge concluded that the CC&Rs require the Association to maintain all property up to the exterior lines and that if the Association wishes to change this, it must formally amend its CC&Rs.
10. The final order deemed the Petitioners the prevailing party and directed the Respondent to pay the Petitioners’ $500.00 filing fee within thirty days. It further ordered the Respondent to comply with the requirements of Article VI of the CC&Rs going forward.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for essay-length responses to encourage a deeper analysis of the case. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the legal reasoning of the Administrative Law Judge in both the initial and final decisions. Why was Article 6 of the CC&Rs consistently interpreted as unambiguous, and how did this interpretation override the Respondent’s “business judgment” defense and subsequent board resolutions?
2. Compare and contrast the evidence and arguments presented by the Respondent in the first hearing versus the rehearing. How did the Association’s defense strategy evolve, and what new evidence did it introduce in the second hearing?
3. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the case documents. Using specific examples from the testimony and exhibits, explain how the Petitioners met this burden of proof and why the Respondent’s affirmative defenses failed to meet the same standard in both hearings.
4. Examine the tension between a homeowners’ association’s governing documents (like CC&Rs) and the operational decisions made by its Board of Directors. How does this case illustrate the limits of a Board’s authority to interpret or modify its responsibilities without formally amending the core documents?
5. Evaluate the various pieces of evidence introduced during the rehearing, such as the Board Minutes from 1999 and 2020, the letter from Leon’s Tree Service, and the attempted introduction of the developer’s affidavit. What role did each piece of evidence play in shaping the arguments, and why was some evidence given more weight or deemed inadmissible by the judge?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact, and issues decisions and orders. In this case, the ALJ was Velva Moses-Thompson.
Affidavit
A written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court. An affidavit from the original developer, Dale Chastain, was presented but not admitted into evidence.
Affirmative Defense
A defense in which the defendant introduces evidence that, if found to be credible, will negate liability, even if it is proven that the defendant committed the alleged acts.
Arizona Dept. of Real Estate
The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
Business Judgment Rule
A legal principle that grants directors of a corporation (or non-profit association) immunity from liability for losses incurred in corporate transactions if the directors acted in good faith. This was used as a defense by the Respondent in the first hearing.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or subdivision. The interpretation of Article 6 of the CC&Rs was the central issue of the case.
Common Area
Property in a planned community that is owned by the homeowners’ association and intended for the use and enjoyment of all members. The dispute centered on the maintenance of a common area behind the Petitioners’ home.
Conjecture
An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. A witness for the Respondent admitted his belief about a maintenance rule was “conjecture.”
Evidentiary Hearing
A formal proceeding where parties present evidence and testimony before a judge to resolve a disputed issue.
Homeowners’ Association (HOA)
An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium building that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. In this case, the Sabino Vista Townhouse Association.
Office of Administrative Hearings
An independent state agency in Arizona where evidentiary hearings are conducted by Administrative Law Judges.
Petitioners
The party that files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Sam & Pipper O’ Shaughnessy Stangl.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil cases, defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” The Petitioners had the burden of proving their case by this standard.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case, granted upon request, to reconsider the original decision. The April 4, 2022, hearing was a rehearing, treated as a “complete and new hearing.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Sabino Vista Townhouse Association.
Restrictive Covenant
A provision in a deed or other legal document that limits the use of real property. The court noted that unambiguous restrictive covenants are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.
Riparian Area
An area of land adjacent to a river or stream. The Respondent’s witness described the community as being in a riparian area next to Tanque Verde Creek.
He Sued His HOA Over Landscaping and Won. They Demanded a Do-Over. He Won Again. Here Are the Lessons.
Introduction: The David vs. Goliath Tale of a Homeowner and His HOA
For many homeowners, dealing with a Homeowners Association (HOA) can feel like a constant struggle. Disputes over rules, maintenance, and responsibilities are common frustrations. But what happens when a homeowner believes their HOA is fundamentally failing to uphold its end of the bargain?
This is the story of Sam O’ Shaughnessy Stangl, a homeowner who took his HOA to court over its failure to maintain a common area behind his home. The outcome was surprising enough: he won. But when the HOA was granted a complete “do-over” hearing to re-argue the case from scratch, he won a second time.
This case, Stangl vs. Sabino Vista Townhouse Association, offers a powerful case study in the hierarchy of governing documents and the legal principle of plain language in contract law. Here are the surprising and powerful lessons from the repeated legal victory that every homeowner should know.
1. An HOA Board Vote Can’t Override Its Own Founding Documents
The HOA’s core defense was that its Board of Directors had made a decision to leave the area behind the homes as an “unmaintained natural desert.” This argument, however, proved legally insufficient across two separate hearings.
In the first hearing, board secretary Charles Taylor Ostermeyer testified that the board had decided to limit maintenance. However, when pressed by the judge, he admitted that claiming this decision was a formal “rule” would be “conjecture on my part.” For the rehearing, the association presented board member John Polaski, who formalized the argument, claiming the unmaintained area served as a “natural buffer.” To support this, they presented minutes from a 2020 board meeting, arguing that the board’s decision recorded in those minutes effectively created a new policy for that common area.
In both instances, the Administrative Law Judge delivered a decisive counter-ruling. The judge found that the association’s primary governing documents—the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)—were the superior legal authority. A simple board vote recorded in meeting minutes could not nullify the binding requirements of the CC&Rs. The judge’s final order from the rehearing was unequivocal:
Although the Board determined that it would not maintain the natural desert, the Board does not have authority under its CC&Rs to refuse to maintain any of the area of its property up to the exterior building lines. … If the Association does not want to maintain any area within its property up to the exterior building lines, the Association should amend its CC&Rs.
This is a critical lesson for every homeowner. The CC&Rs function as a legally binding contract between the association and its members. A simple board resolution, a new rule, or a long-standing “tradition” cannot legally contradict the foundational covenants.
2. When the Contract is Clear, “All” Simply Means All
The entire case ultimately hinged on a single sentence in Article VI of the Sabino Vista Townhouse Association CC&Rs. This piece of text was so clear and powerful that the judge cited it as the deciding factor in both the original hearing and the rehearing. The language stated:
“The Association, or its duly authorized representative, shall maintain and otherwise manage all property up to the exterior building lines and patio enclosures including but not limited to the landscaping…”
The HOA attempted to argue around this plain language. Its representatives claimed that maintaining the entire area was too costly, that it had been unmaintained since the community was built in 1974, and that it was a “riparian area” (land adjacent to a river or stream) that should be left wild.
In both hearings, the judge rejected these arguments. The word “all” was not open to interpretation. The language of the CC&Rs was unambiguous and therefore had to be enforced as it was written. This illustrates a fundamental legal principle: when contract language is clear, arguments about convenience, cost, or past practice often fail when pitted against the plain text of a governing legal document.
3. Facts are Stubborn, Even in a “Complete New Hearing”
In a highly unusual procedural twist, after losing the first hearing in November 2021, the HOA was granted a “re-hearing” in April 2022. This was not an appeal, which reviews an original decision for errors, but a complete strategic reset. The judge explained its legal significance:
“And this is a re-hearing. So it is a complete and new hearing. … as if the first hearing didn’t happen.”
The HOA used this second chance to launch a new strategy. While the first hearing’s defense centered on cost and a vague, unwritten policy, the second hearing featured a new witness and a new, two-pronged approach: formalizing the “natural buffer” argument and adding an ad hominem strategy that attempted to portray Mr. Stangl as an uncooperative resident who had personally interfered with tree trimming.
But while the HOA’s tactics shifted, the central fact of the case could not be changed. The text of the CC&Rs was the same in April 2022 as it was in November 2021. The final outcome was identical to the first. The judge once again ruled in favor of the homeowner, ordering the HOA to comply with its own CC&Rs and to reimburse Mr. Stangl’s $500 filing fee.
This demonstrates a key legal reality: while procedural tactics can create new opportunities for argument, they cannot alter the foundational text of a contract. The HOA’s strategy shifted, but the CC&Rs—the central fact of the case—remained immutable.
Conclusion: A Final Takeaway for Every Homeowner
The case of Stangl vs. Sabino Vista Townhouse Association offers three profound takeaways for homeowners: the CC&Rs are supreme over board decisions, the plain language of those documents is incredibly powerful, and a fact-based argument is resilient. It serves as a potent reminder that an association’s governing documents are not just suggestions—they are enforceable contracts.
The next time you question an HOA policy, will you stop at their latest newsletter, or will you go back to the source?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Sam O' Shaughnessy Stangl (petitioner)
- Pipper O' Shaughnessy Stangl (petitioner)
- Dale Chastine (developer/witness)
Original developer who provided an affidavit supporting petitioners - Lisa Chastine (witness)
Signed father's affidavit as a witness
Respondent Side
- Blake R. Johnson (HOA attorney)
The Brown Law Group, PLLC - Nathan Tennyson (HOA attorney)
The Brown Law Group, PLLC
Appeared for rehearing; also referred to as Nathan Henderson in transcript - Charles Taylor Ostermeyer (board member)
Sabino Vista Townhouse Association
Secretary of Board; testified at original hearing - John Polasi (board member)
Sabino Vista Townhouse Association
Chairman of the Landscaping Committee; testified at rehearing - Leon (contractor)
Leon's Tree Service
Tree trimmer hired by HOA; provided a signed statement/testimony
Neutral Parties
- Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
- Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Email recipient - djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Email recipient - DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Email recipient - vnunez (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Email recipient - c. serrano (clerk)
Transmitted order - Miranda Alvarez (clerk)
Transmitted order
Other Participants
- Barbara Barski (property manager)
Former manager of the association
